User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wiki Tribune

Can others please comment on the belief of a Wiki Tribune contributor that his article there is a reliable source here: Certificate of life. I don't believe it is. User talk:AlistairKelman and an alt account. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Even as we speak, the story is being pulled from WikiTribune, as it does not meet our standards by a very wide margin. You have my apologies for the inconvenience.

My sincere goal is that every story published at WikiTribune be suitable as a reliable source for Wikipedia. This means that every claim must be carefully confirmed by either another reliable source or evidentiary support, made as public as it can be made. This story did not meet that.

We are still exploring questions about whether or not to allow "essays" as opposed to hard news stories, and for me, this is another nail in the coffin for essays. The author should have published it on a blog or on Medium or something like that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have commented on this particular case at User talk:AlistairKelman, but one aspect seems worth discussing here as well. Alistair Kelman wrote an essay on WikiTribune then cited that same essay on an Wikipedia article. Even if the essay itself was tjhe most well-cited material on the Internet, this would still violate our rules on WP:COI. From the standpoint of WikiTribune's reputation, Alistair made the claim "My essay in WikiTRIBUNE was approved by a professional WikiTRIBUNE editor. Hence it can now be used as the validating the earlier materials and as a source"[1] I would like to see a clarification posted by someone from WikiTribune.

Also, I just went back to checked my citations for typos and found that the essay on WikiTribune is now a HTTP 404. Jimbo, would it be better to have a custom 404 error page explaining why the page was deleted? Or better yet, return a HTTP 410 ("gone") with a custom error page instead? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I was the person who originally removed the offending content, and indeed, regardless of the source's credibility, one should not be citing one's own work. Dare I say that I did not consider WikiTribune a reliable source, but I'll keep what Jimbo said in mind in future. !dave 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Where would be a good place on WikiTribune to discuss my idea of using HTTP 410 instead of HTTP 404 when Wikitribune articles are deleted? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be feedback-on-everything-please ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to square the circle here - I don't want to get into a flame war but the removal of my explanation from the Proof of Life article, which sets out the procedure used in the UK and the reasons why it is so used on legal grounds, is likely to cause harm to innocent third parties (such as pensioners who need to claim their EU pensions) who are faced with local authority bureaucracies that have no other source of reliable material on these processes. Hence my attempt to get it put back notwithstanding that it may breach a Wikipedia editing rule about citation sources. I raised the matter with WikiTribune and as a result Peter Bale the Launch Editor of WikiTribune has taken it down to investigate the matter which I am welcoming. If we are going to counter “fake news” then we need some way of working co-operatively with Wikipedia so that Wikipedia accepts content from WikiTribune as reliable and true. My take on this is that Wikipedia should treat an article on WikiTribune which has gone through its editorial processes in the same way as it treats an article from a mainstream broadsheet or magazine such as the Telegraph or the Spectator. To do that WikiTribune probably needs a hierarchy of contributors who are themselves rated for honesty, truth and reliability – a bit like an eBay rating system but operated by the WT professional editors. I edit and write under my own name. I maintain a public presence (www.alikelman.com). I am accountable for my actions and inactions. Just like professional journalists – except that they can write better than I can. AlistairKelman (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated that he plans on making "every story published at WikiTribune be suitable as a reliable source for Wikipedia" I have no doubt that he will accomplish that goal. What you suggest above is that instead of WikiTribune becoming a reliable source Wikipedia should abandon our policies on WP:OR and WP:V. That isn't going to happen. I have replied more extensively concerning your claims on your talk page, where this discussion belongs as well. Please reply at User talk:AlistairKelman, not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Based upon subsequent WP:IDHT behavior, I have posted a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AlistairKelman --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A classic case of WP:TRUTH and WP:RGW. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Embedding Youtube videos while protecting the holy virgin ad-free nature of Wikipedia pages

I was thinking of all the embedded Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter videos of the 2018 Women's March that I have been seeing in many reliable news articles.

Whereas, Wikipedia lives, yet still, in the Stone Age. What gives? Why accept only static images? Look at this great article I worked on:

• List of 2017 Women's March locations

It would be greater still if some of the awesome overhead static crowd photos when clicked would go to a video that pans the crowd further from above:

• https://www.facebook.com/nbcchicago/videos/10160466013820725

Why fear that Youtube, Facebook, or Twitter might introduce their videos with an ad? Why is that a problem? We link to many references that have ads on their pages.

One solution might be to embed the video on Wikipedia, but have it open up in a new tab at the original source of the video. We see the thumbnail on Wikipedia, and, when clicked, get sent directly to the video page off-wiki.

That way no ad mars the holy nature of our sanctified sanctuary of virginal white Wikipedia pages. ;)
--Timeshifter (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Our "Static" images are released by their creators to compatible copyrights, will the video creators do the same? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

See also Category:Articles containing video clips. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia will never be able to compete in a timely way with the video storage capabilities and bandwidth/server costs involved.

That category is not for embedded, or linked, Youtube/Facebook/Twitter videos. "This category aims to show all articles using embedded or thumbnailed Wikipedia/Wikimedia-video clips. Do not add articles where external videos are linked, like YouTube or similar." --Timeshifter (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is related discussion here:

Talk:List of 2018 Women's March locations#Reliable Youtube sources giving crowd numbers, with aerial views

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Advertisements are only one problem with embedded material.

The other, more significant problem, is the dependence on an outside provider.

Wikipedia is unlike more ephemeral news sources or blogs because it is attempting to build an encyclopedia that is freely available forever. (And embedding introduces both legal and technical hurdles. )

ApLundell (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is no longer a technical hurdle. There are many wikis that embed videos. And there are many sites outside wikis that embed all kinds of videos, too. And making a link open in a new tab, rather than in the same tab, is very old technology. So any ads would only show on the original page.

We are dependent on outside providers for references, and there are many dead links. So that is not a new problem.

The worst that can usually happen is that someone clicks on a video thumbnail in an article, and the new tab opens into a 404 error page.

It is not a legal problem, as long as we link, and embed, stuff uploaded by the creators. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that It is a technical and legal hurdle to the goal of creating a base of content that is freely available forever.

Obviously, it's easy enough to put the embed code in place. But we can't permanently integrate the video into our own content the way we can with a properly licensed photograph. It remains Google's content, and as such, has not helped Wikipedia's long-term goals. (And could possibly even hinder those long-term goals by discouraging or displacing content that is more useful to those long-term goals.) ApLundell (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Other potential issues: loading a page would allow third party sites to immediately track it, most linked videos would be self-published. —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Of course, we could always look for video available under compatible free licenses, Wikipedians can take videos and release them under free licenses, or we can ask the people who hold the copyright to release the video (or in a case like this, even an appropriate snippet of one) under a free license. Then we can upload them right to Commons and use them in the article, no issue. But free, reusable content is a part of the core mission of Wikipedia, and treating it as dismissively as you do with the totally unneeded snark here is not a great way to get taken seriously. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Embedding content from third party sites isn't the Wikipedia way of doing things, and there are various risks involved. If a video is CC licensed (most YouTube videos aren't) it should be possible to upload it to Commons and add it to the relevant article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Timeshifter should try dialing back the sarcasm (it doesn't work here, but I am making allowances based on the possibility that his usual venue is Youtube comments) and instead start working on getting the authors of those videos to release them under a compatible CC license. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sure. Without embedded video we can't fulfil the mission of being the primary high-traffic news aggregator in the world. Oh, wait, that's not what Wikipedia is. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Overall comment. I used my snark to try to get through the almost religious nature of some Wikipedia beliefs. We have had this video discussion many times, and we never get anywhere. People say, try to get more CC video. Dream on. People say Wikipedia can handle the server and bandwidth costs if we truly were able to get lots of CC video. No it couldn't. That is way more expensive than Wikipedia's budget will ever be. Oh well, I tried to lead the sheep to new pastures. But no luck. /snark. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It may seem arbitrary and "religious" to you because you misunderstand the goal here.

Perhaps a non-wikipedia analogy could help : Imagine how much money "Archive.org" could save if, instead of archiving videos, they just used YouTube embeds! Additionally, they could get fresh new content that way instead of waiting for copyrights to run out! But ... would that help them achieve their goals? No. Their goal is to build up their archive; the YouTube videos could not form part of that archive, and would distract their employees and volunteers from building that archive.

Wikipedia is also trying to build an archive, and using Youtube videos would be just as counter-productive here.

ApLundell (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

YouTube videos could be useful for articles 71.161.214.1 (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)